preservation-elitist-panel-2-072115
Left to right: Panelists Fedak, Powell Harris, Lodhi and Brady

Is historic preservation elitist? It depends who you ask. Six experts and a very well informed audience — many of them professional or grassroots preservationists — convened Monday night at the Museum of the City of New York to ponder the question. Here are the answers:

Sometimes. But the bigger problem is it doesn’t help housing.
Even the two pro-development speakers didn’t exactly argue that preservation is elitist. Nikolai Fedak, founder of pro-development website New York YIMBY (it stands for “yes in my backyard”), blamed zoning restrictions for the affordable housing crisis.

The nut of his argument is that if restrictions were eased, and developers could build higher and more densely throughout New York City, we would have enough units to meet demand, and prices would fall.

Nope. But it should be used sparingly.
Real estate trade association Real Estate Board of New York favors landmarking but in moderation. Only worthy buildings should be designated, said REBNY Vice President for Urban Planning Paimaan Lodhi, who was previously a district manager for a community board in Manhattan.

Irresponsible landmarking — such as of empty lots and gas stations — restricts development, he said. (REBNY has supported recent designations, including Chester Court in Prospect Lefferts Gardens.)

historic-district-crown-heights-north-st-marks-avenue-072115

A landmarked stretch of St. Marks Avenue in Crown Heights.

NO! New buildings are more elitist than preservation.
Arguing forcefully that preservation is not elitist were Two Bridges’ Associate Director Kerri Culhane, Weeksville President and Executive Director Tia Powell Harris, and founder of the Bedford Stuyvesant Society for Historic Preservation Claudette Brady.

It’s development of new luxury buildings, not preservation, that is elitist and causes gentrification and displacement, as we see in Williamsburg, where there is virtually no landmarking, according to Culhane. Local residents in low and middle-income communities of color, not elites, pushed to landmark Weeksville’s Hunterfly Road houses and historic districts in Bedford Stuyvesant, Crown Heights, and the Bronx, said Brady and Powell Harris.

Since landmarking, the areas have not gentrified (or have only recently), continued Brady. Preservation helps retain affordable housing stock, as when landmarked buildings are adapted for low-income apartments and because rents are often lower in older buildings, she said.

Yes. The privileged decide what’s worth preserving.
A pro-preservation audience member who lives in Harlem countered that preservation – or the preservation movement – is elitist because very few poor communities of color are landmarked. He added: Gentrification has nothing to do with landmarking, and the only way to create affordable housing in New York City is through rent regulation.

A few choice quotes:

“On the Bowery, you have 18th century houses two stories high with a FAR of 9. There is no incentive for property owners to support preservation.” —  Kerri Culhane, Associate Director of Two Bridges

“Co-opted activist groups care only about increasing their property values and freezing others out.” — Nikolai Fedak, NY YIMBY

“I view landmarking as a public good. [It should] be balanced with other interests so the city can grow responsibly.” — Paimaan Lodhi, Real Estate Board of New York Vice President for Urban Planning

“The answer is: Rent control is the only way you will have affordable housing in New York City.” — Audience member

Five facts:

  • New York City’s Landmarks Law was enacted in 1965.
  • Brooklyn Heights was the city’s first historic district.
  • 4.5 percent of buildings in Brooklyn are landmarked.
  • A building must be more than 30 years old to be landmarked.
  • Several buildings in Brooklyn were converted into affordable housing after they were landmarked, including the Renaissance and Alhambra apartments in Bed Stuy and the Imperial and the John and Elizabeth Truslow house in Crown Heights.

The panel, cosponsored by Weeksville Heritage Center, was part of the ongoing exhibit Saving Place: 50 Years of New York City Landmarks. It was moderated by a former chair of the Landmarks Preservation Commission, Laurie Beckelman (she is also Founding Partner of nonprofit consultant Beckelman+Capalino).

If you want to know more:
REBNY: Excessive Landmarking Stifling Growth [REW]
Proving the Success of New York City’s Landmarks Law [Preservation Leadership Forum]
A Proven Success: How the NYC Landmark Law Benefits the City [Historic Districts Council]
Preserving History or Hindering Growth? The Heterogeneous Effects of Historic Districts on Local Housing Markets in New York City [Furman Center]
Six Panels Explore Preservation in Brooklyn and Beyond [Brownstoner]
An Exhibition About the Landmarks Law in Brooklyn and Beyond [Brownstoner]

 


What's Your Take? Leave a Comment

  1. Homeowners in landmarked neighborhoods are not by definition “rich.” For example, I own a house in a landmarked neighborhood. I bought it in 1988 when there was almost no market for houses in this area despite the fact that it was landmarked. I bought it because after saving up for a down payment for many years, it was what I could afford; because I thought the neighborhood was beautiful; and because it had decent access to public transportation. I wasn’t rich then, and I”m not now – aside from the fact that the building has appreciated considerably. But I certainly never expected it to do so. And the building’s value means little to me at this point aside from the fact that I couldn’t afford to live in NYC if I hadn’t bought it when I did. And I am just as entitled as rich people to enjoy historic architecture – as are my tenants. My mortgage is paid off, and for me, this house IS affordable housing. Besides, the percentage of landmarked areas in NYC is too small to impact affordable housing in any case; and developers’ efforts to blame landmarking for their own greed in failing to build more affordable housing is nothing but laughable. Did they want to build in landmarked areas before rents and condo prices went through the roof? No, they cared nothing about landmarking. But now, suddenly, landmarking is a villain? Give me a break. Preservation of historic architecture is just as important as preservation of historic artwork – and that’s not an elitist statement. Human life is too short not to enable new generations to learn about, and appreciate, the history of architecture.

  2. Clearly there is a lot to debate here, but lets revisit the original question posed. Is it elitist, I contend it is (both based on increasing population, buildings not built to accomadate current residents, materials etc.), what is your stance?

1 2 3 8